I have to disagreed.....Originally posted by EXCO:Yes, I completely agree with Reggi. That sums up our defence posture and strategy quite well.
Yes. The USA is a factor to our defence posture. However we cannot expect other countries not to attack us because US is on our side. We cannot expect full military support from the US as well. To include the US in all of our defence doctrines is a stupid thing. It means we rely too much on the US, and it will show that we are incapable of defending ourselves when the need arises. If you notice, MINDEF does not release news or information on how the US will integrate with our forces.Originally posted by CX:I don't think that its helpful to discuss ANYTHING narrowly... it simply does not do justice to the enormous complexities involved in the regional/global scheme of things.
The USA is an important factor influencing the SAF's defence posture. You can't rule them out. Besides, you need peacekeepers after that... so why limit the scope of discussion to only Sg and the immediate region?
If Indonesia and malaysia combine their forces... they will still be weak... against singapore...Originally posted by Reggi:Any attempt to hold on to Malaysian territory will effectively force both Indonesia and Malaysia to unite against us. For all their ups and downs in diplomacy, Islam will be a strong unifying factor, as well as the fact of common interest against an aggressive expansionist Singapore.
Given the size of their combined territories, it would be impossible to overrun them. As they pull in and engage in guerilla warfare, we would be drawn into precise the type of war we would want to avoid - a war of attrition.
Elements within the Middle East can be counted to support them with arms etc given that Singapore has always been aligned staunchly with the US. On the other hand, we cannot even be sure of US support if we are in the role of the aggressor.
Territorial ambitions will transform Singapore into the Israel of South East Asia. Is this something that we want?
While the Middle East is not one big happy family, history has shown that they could and had united not once but thrice against Israel.Originally posted by CX:It is not something we want. But it is something we will expend all efforts to achieve if circumstances are forced upon us.
Islam is only a unifying force superficially. Millitary alliances are amongst the most fragile of political associations. Especially if the parties are united only in their cause against a common enemy. They will begin to step on each other's tail after awhile and start killing each other instead.
Case in point: WW2, Germany and Japan. Nothing in common, conflicting territorial interests but joined in alliance due to a superficial ideology.
And if Islam was a unifying force, then why isn't the Middle East one big happy family? Its much more complicated than that. Don't oversimplify geo-politics by using labels to freely. They mislead more often than they clarify.
You also forget that the southern tip of the peninsula is predominantly ethnic Chinese. They may not prove willing collaborators now, but people follow their interests just as often as they follow their nationalist passions. It will ultimately depend on the circumstances surrounding the scenario.
For instance, You think Malaysian Chinese are gonna happily give up the Chinese language, convert to Islam and invade Singapore if Malaysia and Indonesia unites in a religious alliance to smite the region of the Pagan Chinese scourge?
In such a scenario, Sg can count on not being alone... The Thais would get nervous and the Chinese might just wanna move in to claim their piece of the Spratlys and the Americans would wanna move in to "stabilise" the region.
Its not as simple as u think...
****simi cost??? where is the threat?? indonesian and malaysian navy??? i thought RSN and RSAF already sent them an invitation card to become the son-in-law of the sea dragon at the bottom of the sea.....???Originally posted by Reggi:While the Middle East is not one big happy family, history has shown that they could and had united not once but thrice against Israel.
And when they rally and unite - it is not because of religon alone. It is also in their interest to stand against Israel. The last thing they want is a precedence for Middle Eastern land being partitioned and given away to non-indigenous entities.
****CAN dont talk about isreal here?? singapore not isreal hor... and other then malaysia and indonesia which can boast of muslim malay brotherhood... the other 9 nation of ASEAN hardly think themselves malay or muslim enough to join malaysia and indonesia against singapore... i WONT be surprise on the other hand... if the Aussies might wanna backstab indonesia once in a while... likewise.. thailand and phillipine also got bones to grind with malaysia.... so... who is the real isreal here???
In the case of Singapore, Indonesia must also intervene - the question that will be on their mind would be : if Singapore can attack JB today, whats to stop them from seizing batam and bintan too in the future?
****wacking malaysia is like wacking a dog... wacking indonesia would be like wacking a bear... so... just because singapore can wack a dog... i seriously doubt singapore would unilaterally (eat too full) go and wack the bear..... crap... logic..
In the past, Malaysian Chinese might have strongly identified themselves with their southern counterparts. But I think that such a link is not so strong today. I think that the bit about the Malaysian Chinese being forced to convert to Islam is totally irrelevant - why would the Malaysian government be forcing things upon the Malaysian Chinese at the time when they would want to count on their support?
****the malaysian chinese can choose to fight on singapore side.... OR get killed by both singapore troops and malaysian troops... fence sitting is clearly not an option for malaysian chinese.....![]()
![]()
![]()
I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil. And I don't see how China would want to move in on the Spratlys at this point of time - it have never been a issue of Malaysia or Indonesia being too strong for China. They did not attempt to occupy the islands mainly because they wanted to build an international presence - the aggression would have resulted in China's isolation from the world at large.
****hahahaa......... sure... you can hope... you can pray... but please do tell... if CHINA tomolo come and take away you island...wat can YOU DO???![]()
![]()
and if thailand decide to march south when singapore march north... wat r u gonna do??? put on your thinking cap and THINK somemore???
![]()
![]()
The American's would have wanted to stabilise the region, and I think it is pretty certain that they would have required Singapore to withdraw totally from Malaysian soil. Any other solution would not be acceptable to the Malaysians/Indonesians. Any other solution would not have restored peace.
****naive..... first you think that the thai wont get involve... then u hope that china wont take away your island... now you believe that americans are gonna save your ass...... ahhaahaaa.a........![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
****acceptable to malaysians??? you and wat army is gonna make your stand??
The issues at hand is indeed not simple. I have never claimed that it is simple, or that my opinion encompasses all possible angles of the matter. Was it something I said that imparted such an impression?
****blur king....
Lastly, while it is true that Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to seriously threaten mainland Singapore - what they can do is to join up with Malaysia to restrict our sea lines of communication (SLOCs).
****wehh...... surely i think wat you really mean is SAF cuts off indonesian SLOCs right??? i mean... clearly... as you claim... indonesia do lack the force to threaten singapore...
The majority of Singapore's economic activites come from external sources. If all incoming planes and ships are being harrassed, what would the cost be to our economy? If we have to mobilise fighters and gun boats to escort all these traffic, what would the cost be like?
In the first place, we discussed that Sg was retaliating to armed aggression from the north. The discussion then proceeded if we hold their territory or not and you replied:Originally posted by Reggi:In the case of Singapore, Indonesia must also intervene - the question that will be on their mind would be : if Singapore can attack JB today, whats to stop them from seizing batam and bintan too in the future?
Again, we are NOT talking about Sg being the aggressor. If u had violent Muslim fundamentalist neighbours knocking at your door and agitating your Muslim minority, believe you me, you you be nervous. The Thais have a sizeable Muslim minority on its Southern borders with Malaysia... If there ever was a problem with Islamic fundamentalism, they would care.
In the past, Malaysian Chinese might have strongly identified themselves with their southern counterparts. But I think that such a link is not so strong today. I think that the bit about the Malaysian Chinese being forced to convert to Islam is totally irrelevant - why would the Malaysian government be forcing things upon the Malaysian Chinese at the time when they would want to count on their support?
[/quote]
Islamic fundamentalism is extreme and characterised by exclusion. It wouldn't be fundamentalist otherwise. PAS is not fundamentalist because they still have to balance the interests of their Chinese voters. Thats why we don't have to worry about them... yet. Why would they court the pork-eating infidels into collaborating with them? I find this inconceivable. You might as well ask Jews to vote Nazis.
I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil. And I don't see how China would want to move in on the Spratlys at this point of time - it have never been a issue of Malaysia or Indonesia being too strong for China. They did not attempt to occupy the islands mainly because they wanted to build an international presence - the aggression would have resulted in China's isolation from the world at large.
War, by its very definition, seeks to change the existing political order in favour of those who hope to win it. Why bother fighting an expensive war, damaging our economy and have nothing to show for it but the scars? Sure, leave our enemies intact and simmering with anger... buy us some time till they come at us again... go figure.
The American's would have wanted to stabilise the region, and I think it is pretty certain that they would have required Singapore to withdraw totally from Malaysian soil. Any other solution would not be acceptable to the Malaysians/Indonesians. Any other solution would not have restored peace.
The issues at hand is indeed not simple. I have never claimed that it is simple, or that my opinion encompasses all possible angles of the matter. Was it something I said that imparted such an impression?
Erm if you actually looked carefully, Singapore's defence officials had never ever once refered to our northern neighbour as the enemy. Even training that time we use terms like Red Force or The Aggressor. But yes, the most likely military threat to us would be Malaysia....Originally posted by EXCO:Reggi, no offense, but I do not understand your following point.
"I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil."
You have mentioned that you have served in the SAF before, thus i believe you should know that Singapore's strategy is to attack into Malaysia, in fact i tend to believe that that is the only objective Singapore will try to achieve militarily. So why did you say Singapore is the "aggressor occupying Malaysian soil" when clearly Malaysia would have initiated an armed response in the first place? Sorry if i did not understand you correctly. Please clarify.
Originally posted by EXCO:... i don't necessarily mean geographical gains from a battle, but more importantly, stability.